MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159890589 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keg438

A brief screening tool for knee pain in primary care (KNEST). 2. Results from a survey in the general population aged 50 and over

2003· article· en· W2159890589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clare Jinks

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of rheumatology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKnee painWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyChronic painPopulationConfidence intervalInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To use a brief screening tool to identify knee pain (all knee pain, non-chronic and chronic knee pain) and associated health-care use in the general population aged 50 yr and over. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 8995 individuals registered with three general practices in North Staffordshire, UK. The questionnaire included a Knee Pain Screening Tool (KNEST), the Short Form 36 (SF36), demographic questions and, for those who reported knee pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: The survey achieved a 77% response. The 12-month period prevalence of all knee pain was 46.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6%, 48.0%]. Figures for non-chronic knee pain (pain of less than 3 months duration) and chronic knee pain (pain of more than 3 months duration) were 21.5% (95% CI 20.5%, 22.5%) and 25.3% (95% CI 24.3%, 26.4%) respectively. An estimated 6% of the older population had non-chronic but severe knee pain or disability. Thirty-three per cent of all knee pain sufferers had consulted their general practitioner (GP) about their symptom in the last year. This included 34% of those with non-chronic but severe knee pain or disability and 56% of those with chronic and severe knee pain or disability. The use of private treatments or services for knee pain was minimal. A third of those with chronic and severe knee pain or disability had not used any services (including GP) in the last year. CONCLUSIONS: The KNEST is a simple tool for the identification of individuals with knee pain and their health-care use. Focusing only on chronic knee pain will underestimate the total need and demand for health-care in knee pain sufferers in the general older population, as non-chronic as well as chronic knee pain has a significant impact on people's lives and on their use of primary health-care. The KNEST, when combined with the WOMAC, identifies population groups who have potentially diverse health-care needs and who might benefit from effective health-care. These data can be used alongside evidence on effective treatments by service planners when considering needs for the care of older adults in primary care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of rheumatologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207